jury’s report abstract

Something about jury’s methodology.
We did a preliminary evaluation of the projects, accounting for the competition criteria, and we did a proposals’ first grading, valuating them in 4 levels:
– red: not responding to the competition requirements
– yellow: responding to the competition requirements, but whit evident weakness
– green: well-responding to the competition requirements
– blue: first-rate proposals

after this first evaluation, we zeroed in on some findings:
– “blue” projects are often alternative each other
– we are interested in the teams’ quality, besides proposals’ quality
– we have to select teams able to do the best work for our design process
– “internal” interdisciplinarity is likely to be an obstacle to “external” interdisciplinarity

in order to ease the jury’s work, to we tag every proposals with the following keyword referring to comparable features and focuses:
– parco a ruderi
– management model
– newtork lean
– project management
– local
– set-up partnerships

then, we asked the jury to build up the best team (or team of teams) for the next steps of the process of regional transformation.
Jury did its work (on saturday) on 30 projects upon 56 (the yellow/green to blue ones). Jurors were divided (following their expertise) in three groups, in order to valuate proposals from three points of view: